Celebrity Tax Avoidance

So Jimmy Carr has accepted that this sort of thing is not cool, will be interesting to see if others follow suit. Better late than never I guess and a PR masterclass in defusing a situation that could have been pretty damaging.

While the £250ish million said to be tied up in these schemes isn't exactly a drop in the ocean, it does look like a bit of a smokescreen (for doctors, Argentina, the Euro crisis- who knows?). And why single out, or at least highlight Carr, when Barlow et al are doing the same thing? I'm sure it has nothing to do with one presenting a satirical show that has a pretty obvious left wing bias and the other being a tory supporter.

I'm more disappointed at how easily he's backed down than anything to be honest. In his position I'd have just said "yeah, I've optimised my tax return for my personal gain, because I can. When your non-dom donor friends and the likes of Vodafone start paying their tax, come back to me and we can talk".

Its always a dodgy path to take, making laws based on 'morality'. It was a legal method of avoiding tax, if HMRC deem it improper then let them close it and reclaim the tax that should have been paid. Until then, good luck to anyone who can get away with it.

You would hope so, but a lot of Rangers issues have come from a tax case hanging over them, that the HMRC was expected to win, where they were paying their players salary top ups via EBTs - Employee Benefit Trusts - essentially the same as this dodge, being given a tax-free "loan" by a trust.

Rangers were doing this since the 90s. So I don't think it's a big shock to the authorities, they've known about it for years. It's as if they have to go after them one by one through the courts, instead of getting the law changed.

Fab4 wrote:
Its always a dodgy path to take, making laws based on 'morality'. It was a legal method of avoiding tax, if HMRC deem it improper then let them close it and reclaim the tax that should have been paid. Until then, good luck to anyone who can get away with it.

But as was said by some guy at the Telegraph, you shouldn't expect, or even want the government to legislate against everything that's immoral, he used the example of infidelity to make his point.

It's very obvious that this is very sharp practice and is undertaken solely to avoid making a proportionate contribution.

Fab4 wrote:
Its always a dodgy path to take, making laws based on 'morality'. It was a legal method of avoiding tax, if HMRC deem it improper then let them close it and reclaim the tax that should have been paid. Until then, good luck to anyone who can get away with it.

But as was said by some guy at the Telegraph, you shouldn't expect, or even want the government to legislate against everything that's immoral, he used the example of infidelity to make his point.

It's very obvious that this is very sharp practice and is undertaken solely to avoid making a proportionate contribution.

You would think that "making sure you pay the government what you owe" is something that could be justifiably legislated for.

So slavery was great when it was legal. But unconscionable when illegal. I think someone earning more than 3 million should pay more than £3500 tax whether that is the law or not.

By the way this scheme could be eligible to tax according to the government so it has been a case, maybe, of getting away with it rather than it being legal.

This is the problem with a legal system that if the law doesn't prevent something it is ok to go ahead and do it. The law is constantly changing because things are constantly being exploited and is far from ok to keep doing.

Fab4 wrote:
Its always a dodgy path to take, making laws based on 'morality'. It was a legal method of avoiding tax, if HMRC deem it improper then let them close it and reclaim the tax that should have been paid. Until then, good luck to anyone who can get away with it.

But as was said by some guy at the Telegraph, you shouldn't expect, or even want the government to legislate against everything that's immoral, he used the example of infidelity to make his point.

It's very obvious that this is very sharp practice and is undertaken solely to avoid making a proportionate contribution.

You would think that "making sure you pay the government what you owe" is something that could be justifiably legislated for.

Do you have any idea how much time a legion of tax accountants spend trying to find loopholes in tax laws? It would take up a very large amount of time and money identifying and closing those loopholes, and as soon as one is found it will be on to the next. The only solution I can see is to say everyone is obliged to work within the standard tax framework unless they can demonstrate a clear reason why they should be allowed to act otherwise.

Zomoniac wrote:
I'm more disappointed at how easily he's backed down than anything to be honest. In his position I'd have just said "yeah, I've optimised my tax return for my personal gain, because I can. When your non-dom donor friends and the likes of Vodafone start paying their tax, come back to me and we can talk".

So we can only tackle one issue at a time? We can have a multi-pronged approach you know.

Anyway from what they have been saying on this tax avoidance from the wealthy is actually the bulk of the revenue that is being lost. They were saying on Sky news 7 billion pounds is being lost through tax avoidance by the wealthy and businesses but of this over half is actually down to the wealthy. Yes as individuals no single one may be as big as something like Vodafone but as a whole they are more significant.